Anti-Catholic WELS

[littlesheep]

Is this not Judgement day when everyone in the whole world will know who He is? “Every knee shall bow” Two sets of people on that day right? Those saved and those condemened right? Who are the sheep? Those saved right? Then who are the goats? Must be Everone else right? “Every knee shall bow”

The sheep did not know they were doing Good works right? “Lord When did we see you sick,etc?”

Who knew that they were doing works? The Goats right? They told Him they were doing works.

If that is unique then I’m sorry. If A=B and B=C then A has to=C unless something is broke, so lets see what is broke.

Before – Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’

After – Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and minister to you?’

Seems to me anyways that removing the “did not” changed the meaning to what you guys want it to say.

Don’t skip the “DID NOT” in the sentance please. :banghead:

 

[maryalene]

littlesheep:

Off on a side track here, but the words are “and did not minister to you?”, what you appear to be focusing on is “When did we see you?” The little words “did not” make a big difference. Read the passage without them and the passage does change focus to the “When did we see you?”

This has been an interesting discussion to read. I think what people are saying is that the goats are basically saying “but when did we see you Lord? If we had seen you, of course, we would have fed, clothed and sheltered you. But we didn’t see you.” And the Lord is basically responding “but if you help anyone (the least of your brothers), you are helping me.” Since it has already been made clear by the Lord that the goats didn’t help Him, it can be inferred that the goats didn’t help anyone. Hence, they completed no good works.

 

[Matt16_18]

littlesheep:

Who are the sheep?

The people who do the good works commanded by Jesus."Why do you call me `Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?”
Luke 6:46

“… he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”
John 3:36

 

[Lazerlike42]

littlesheep:

Is this not Judgement day when everyone in the whole world will know who He is? “Every knee shall bow” Two sets of people on that day right? Those saved and those condemened right? Who are the sheep? Those saved right? Then who are the goats? Must be Everone else right? “Every knee shall bow”

The sheep did not know they were doing Good works right? “Lord When did we see you sick,etc?”

The sheep did know they did good works, just not to Christ. They did all these good things to everyday people, and Christ’s point is that in doing these things to the everyday people, they did it to Him, because however we treat our brothers is how we are treating Him. Go back to Paul’s conversion. He has been persecuting Christians, but Jesus says ,“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Jesus is making the same point in both cases: how we treat our brothers is how we are treating Him. Jesus says, “why do you persecute me” even though Paul has never seen Him. He has seen His followers though, and in treating them badly Paul is treating Christ badly.

Who knew that they were doing works? The Goats right? They told Him they were doing works.

The goats never claim to be doing any good works. They never did good works because they never saw Christ. Jesus is telling them that did see Him in need but never helped Him. They are confused because they never actually saw Christ sitting on the corner. They are saying, “wait Lord! We never saw you in need, we would have helped if we did!” He is telling them, “When you saw that homeless guy and you didn’t help HIm, that is the same as if you saw me and didn’t help.” The point is that these men didn’t do any good works because they never saw Christ to do good works to. They saw only everyday people and didn’t care enough to help them.

If that is unique then I’m sorry. If A=B and B=C then A has to=C unless something is broke, so lets see what is broke.

Before – Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’

After – Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and minister to you?’

Seems to me anyways that removing the “did not” changed the meaning to what you guys want it to say.

Don’t skip the “DID NOT” in the sentance please. :banghead:

Here’s the problem - you are taking only the words of the sheeps and the goats and not paying attention to what Christ says after each time.

First the sheeps say, “Lord when did we see you and give you food?” Alone, this would seem to say that they never did any works. But Christ says to them, “When you fed the least of my brothers, you fed me.” Christ is telling them that they fed Him all those times they fed the least of His brothers. Christ’s words make it very clear that they did indeed do works, because He is referring to times when they helped the least of His brothers.

Then the goats say, “Lord, when did we see you and did not help you?” Alone, this would make it seem like every time they saw Him, they helped Him. But then Christ says, “When you did not help the least of my brothers, you did not Help me.” So again, Christ is referring to times when these people saw the least of His brothers and did not help them.

 

[Lazerlike42]

From Martin Luther’s sermon on Matthew 25

For Christ himself shows that he is speaking of the works of believing Christians, when he says: “I was hungry and ye gave me to eat,” etc.; “what ye have done unto the least of these my brethren ye have done unto me.” For there is no doubt that he who performs such works of mercy to Christians, must himself be a Christian and a believer; but he who does not believe in Christ, will certainly never be so kind toward a Christian, much less toward Christ, so that for his sake he would show mercy to the poor, and needy; therefore he will refer to these works at the judgment, and accordingly pronounce the verdict to both parties, to those who have done, and those who have not done these works, as a public testimony of the fruits of their faith or of their unbelief.

…

Since now this terrible condemnation is justly pronounced over those who neglected these works, what will happen to those who have not only neglected the same, have given nothing to the poor Christians, nor served them; but robbed them of what they had, drove them to hunger, thirst and nakedness, furthermore persecuted, scattered, imprisoned, and murdered them? These are so unutterably wicked, so utterly condemned to the bottomless pit with the devil and his angels, that Christ will not think or speak of them. But he will assuredly not forget these robbers, tyrants, and bloodhounds any more than he will forget or pass over unrewarded those who have suffered hunger thirst, nakedness, persecution and the like, especially for his and his Word’s sake. He will not forget those to whom mercy has been shown, even though he speaks only to those who have shown mercy and have lent their aid; for he highly and nobly commends them, when he says. “Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me.”

…

But how does it happen that the righteous do not recognize and know that they have done their works unto Christ? They say: Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, etc.? The reason is, that to give something to a poor minister, chaplain, teacher, sexton is regarded as a matter altogether of too small significance to be so precious in the sight of God. Yea, the world looks upon it as so much money thrown away. Yet will any one say that the world would be so much richer, were there no pupils, schools, hospitals? Or that it is on their account any poorer, unless it were entirely heathen, or it were, as heretofore, compelled to give enough for the devil’s sake, and allow itself to be flayed to the bone by those who have cheated it of body and soul. In short, the churches and schools receive the very least from the world; yet it is jealous, complains bitterly, and makes a great cry about what they already have, although it gives nothing, and claims to make much better use of its means, when at other times it gives a hundred times as much to shameless, dissolute villains and jugglers; it soon forgets of how much it allows brother Guy to be robbed, and then even it takes a beating in the bargain. It never enters the brain of the world to think and believe that this means to give to Christ; nor is it easy for us to see it ourselves.

And please note that this is long after the split, because when Luther isn’t urging us to do good works, he is saying that the Pope and every last Bishop is already damned to hell!

 

[Sherlock]

littlesheep:

Is this not Judgement day when everyone in the whole world will know who He is? “Every knee shall bow” Two sets of people on that day right? Those saved and those condemened right? Who are the sheep? Those saved right? Then who are the goats? Must be Everone else right? “Every knee shall bow”

The sheep did not know they were doing Good works right? “Lord When did we see you sick,etc?”

Who knew that they were doing works? The Goats right? They told Him they were doing works.

If that is unique then I’m sorry. If A=B and B=C then A has to=C unless something is broke, so lets see what is broke.

Before – Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’

After – Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and minister to you?’

Seems to me anyways that removing the “did not” changed the meaning to what you guys want it to say.

Don’t skip the “DID NOT” in the sentance please. :banghead:

We’re not “skipping” the “did not”. It simply does not change the meaning of the verse to fit your personal intepretation. Lazer has explained this passage very well, and has provided non-Catholic sources as well that supports the intepretation. Again, your intepretation is unique (when I was a Protestant I NEVER heard your interpretation) and I think the reason why is that it’s a comprehension problem.

 

[javelin]

Sherlock:

Let me try to explain this as simply and clearly as possible: both groups believe in Christ (they refer to him as “Lord”). The sheep go to their reward because their belief in the Lord was spilled out in works of love to others. When Jesus says that they gave Him food; clothed Him; etc., they are surprised—they didn’t see Jesus personally. Jesus assures them that what they did for the least of their brothers, they were doing for Him. Likewise with the goats: when Jesus condemns them, it is because they did NOT do the works of love that is part of a saving faith—they were “sola fide”, you might say. They try to defend themselves by explaining that they never saw Jesus personally in front of them, but, as with the sheep, He points out that what is done and, in the case of the goats, NOT done, for our brethren, is done or not done for Him. Likewise for the rich man in the parable—we are told NOTHING about his faith, but what comes through loud and clear is that he is condemned for failing to have regard for the starving Lazarus at his doorstep. In other words, he is judged for his works (or lack of them).

I’ve been following this discussion and it is very interesting.

I would only like to make one point, since many here are doing a fine job of representing their positions.

Sherlock - I agree with your entire post except for the part I bolded. As Littlesheep has said, at the time of the Final Judgement, Jesus will be unmistakably revealed to all of creation as Lord, King, and God. Therefore, the fact that the goats address Him as “Lord” does not signify that they claimed Him as Lord prior to His second coming. These passages make no claim to that one way or another.

That being said, it in no way weakens the passages support for Catholic doctrine on justification and salvation. Actually, in a way it has the potential to explain more in this context. For example, it supports the doctrine of invincible ignorance in that it shows how the sheep can serve Jesus without explicitly knowing Him.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

littlesheep, you didn’t address my response to the Tyndale Bible. You said it was the “first real English Bible”. I listed off many other English Bibles that had been in existance long before Tyndale’s. Do you know of any Protestant alive today (or anytime after Tyndale) that actually uses, or has ever used, his Bible translation? I have never met or heard of any.

I read that part of the History of the Christian Church. The author argues that Wycliff, NOT Tyndale, authored the first English Bible. His entire argument is based on the fact that he is calling St. Thomas More a liar for having said he has seen Bibles in English before Wycliff’s. That is where his entire argument rests (and the fact that ONE MAN, Knighton, wrote something in opposition to the Bible being translated into English). Poor historiography if you ask me.

By the way, this is the same author who says that the Scriptures came to us from “ORAL TRADITION” in his chapter on the composition of the Bible. Just thought that was an interesting tidbit.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Matt16_18]

javelin:

… As Littlesheep has said, at the time of the Final Judgement, Jesus will be unmistakably revealed to all of creation as Lord, King, and God. **Therefore, the fact that the goats address Him as “Lord” does not signify that they claimed Him as Lord prior to His second coming. ** These passages make no claim to that one way or another.

That being said, it in no way weakens the passages support for Catholic doctrine on justification and salvation. Actually, in a way it has the potential to explain more in this context. For example, it supports the doctrine of invincible ignorance in that it shows how the sheep can serve Jesus without explicitly knowing Him.

Good points.

Jesus’ teaching about the sheep and the goats in Matthew chapt. 25 is in the context of the judgement of all the nations at the end of time. The nations being judged would include the nations that existed before Jesus walked the earth and made explicit the Gospel.

Matt. 25: 31-46 is teaching that the doing the works of mercy are necessary for the salvation of every man in every nation, even if men in any particular nation never heard of Jesus or his Gospel. The need to good works is written on the hearts of all men, and woe to any man who neglects to do the works of mercy! … he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
Matt 25:41-43

 

[LutheranStudent]

I think that one of great mis-conceptions among many Catholics, perhaps something that is simply lost in the hype, is the fact that the Church was ripe with need for reform by the time Luther stood up. Someone brought it up, so I am going to pursue it.
Jan Hus lived and died 100 years before Luther posted his 95 thesis… At that time, the name of Hus was abominable in Saxony (Lutherland) because the hype and lies that were attached to his heresies by the Roman bishops and authorities. With news that Luther’s reform efforts were reaching moderate success in Germany, Hussites from Bohemia sent him a book of Hus’ teachings. Luther was appalled - not knowing any real truth about Hus’ teachings, he kindly had Melancthon write a note back to the Hussites thanking them for the book but promising nothing. He himself refused to write the letter because as the recognized leader of the reform efforts he didn’t want to be connected with a known heretic. (I don’t believe Hus was actually a heretic, but I mean to say that he was presented as such when his honest reform movement began to pick up speed.)
It took a long time before Luther read the book out of curiosity. By this time Luther’s theology was a well-worn path in the Word of God. After reading the book, Luther exclaimed something to the effect of, “We are all Hussites without knowing it!”
What I mean to point out is that Luther was not the only one to discover in the Word of God what he found there. There were many before him, and many at his own time.

Someone compared Luther to Joseph Smith. I would say that’s the worst analogy one could make. Luther worked with the Word of God to teach the people what the heirarchy had negelected to teach them. Smith claimed visions and new discoveries. Luther was an honest, upstanding man who put many decent Catholics to shame with his piety. Smith was an abusive sex-offender who manipulated the weak. Prove to me that the entire of Northern Europe were willing to be brainwashed.

Someone please comment on the Conciliarism vs. Papism of the medieval church. Please don’t take offense at the term papists - it is a term that is found throughout the Book of Concord and a reflection of a conflict that was going on in the RCC. Conciliarists believed that councils rule the church, papists that the pope does. After the Reformation, the papists had an obvious majority. Papists describing you is the same as your referring to me as Protestant.

An early Father who promoted sola scriptura without the excesses of Tradition. Salvation by faith alone in Jesus alone, with no regard to works. Condemnation or blatant silence on Purgatory and prayers for the dead. Recognition of the Mother of God as holy, yet a sinner like the rest of us. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though as a rememberance, not a sacrifice.

His name was St. Paul… As a matter of fact, his name was any one of the 12 apostles and NT authors.

Someone seemed to indicate the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion as being representative… Nope - Lutherans believe in the “Real Presence” of Holy Communion, too. Just not transubstanciation.

 

[Sherlock]

javelin:

Sherlock - I agree with your entire post except for the part I bolded. As Littlesheep has said, at the time of the Final Judgement, Jesus will be unmistakably revealed to all of creation as Lord, King, and God. Therefore, the fact that the goats address Him as “Lord” does not signify that they claimed Him as Lord prior to His second coming. These passages make no claim to that one way or another.

That being said, it in no way weakens the passages support for Catholic doctrine on justification and salvation. Actually, in a way it has the potential to explain more in this context. For example, it supports the doctrine of invincible ignorance in that it shows how the sheep can serve Jesus without explicitly knowing Him.

Peace,
javelin

I’m not sure I agree, Javelin, but as you say it doesn’t change the passage’s support for Catholic doctrine. Here’s why I disagree: notice that the goats claim that if they saw Jesus personally, they would have ministered to Him. That implies, does it not, that they already believed in Him during their time on earth—otherwise, why would they have wanted to minister to Him? But I am not wedded to this particular interpretation, and I could be way off base, but in any case it doesn’t change the meaning of the importance of works.

 

[Anima_Christi]

LutheranStudent:

Someone seemed to indicate the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion as being representative… Nope - Lutherans believe in the “Real Presence” of Holy Communion, too. Just not transubstanciation.

Lutheranstudent, if you really believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, would you be willing to bow down in worship to the Sacred Species as we Catholics do? For, since the Blessed Eucharist IS truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord, it is God Himself and should be adored as such.
Please correct me if I’m wrong but Lutherans actually believe in “consubstantiation”, that is, the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the consecration (or whatever it is you guys do), but Jesus is “in, with and under” the bread and wine, and remains only during Communion, afterwards He departs. This is why Lutherans do not reserve their “eucharist” in tabernacles or expose it for adoration.

 

[Sherlock]

LutheranStudent:

I ]

Someone seemed to indicate the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion as being representative… Nope - Lutherans believe in the “Real Presence” of Holy Communion, too. Just not transubstanciation.

Actually, my understanding is that Lutherans believe in “consubstantiation”, that is, that the bread and wine remain and are “with” the Real Presence. I could buy that if Jesus had said, “This is also My Body…this is also My Blood…”, but He didn’t. What part of “this IS” is confusing?

 

[javelin]

Sherlock:

I’m not sure I agree, Javelin, but as you say it doesn’t change the passage’s support for Catholic doctrine. Here’s why I disagree: notice that the goats claim that if they saw Jesus personally, they would have ministered to Him. That implies, does it not, that they already believed in Him during their time on earth—otherwise, why would they have wanted to minister to Him? But I am not wedded to this particular interpretation, and I could be way off base, but in any case it doesn’t change the meaning of the importance of works.

I think you interpretation is potentially true, but not necessarily. Keep in mind the wonder that all of mankind will feel when they are in the presence of Jesus in the Second Coming. In that case, many would say “If we had seen YOU (meaning a glorious Jesus as Lord and King), surely we would have served!” For example, I certainly can imagine that atheists and agnostics might say something very similar at the Second Coming, when they are face to face with the wonder of the Creator and Lord they denied throughout life – “If we had seen YOU, we would certainly have served!”

I’m not saying that the goats definitively did not know Jesus or claim to be His followers, just that the passage is not explicit on their state during life. They may have been Christians in name only, or they may have been atheists.

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

Sherlock:

I’m not sure I agree, Javelin, but as you say it doesn’t change the passage’s support for Catholic doctrine. Here’s why I disagree: notice that the goats claim that if they saw Jesus personally, they would have ministered to Him. That implies, does it not, that they already believed in Him during their time on earth—otherwise, why would they have wanted to minister to Him? But I am not wedded to this particular interpretation, and I could be way off base, but in any case it doesn’t change the meaning of the importance of works.

Call me crazy, but this reminds me of the Beauty and the Beast story, as Disney told it. The enchantress presents herself at the door and asks for help in exchange for a rose. When the prince denies her, she transforms into her true self, at which point his reaction is something like “if I had known who you truly were, I would have helped you!” Alas, it was too late for him, for she “had seen that there was no love in his heart.”

Peace,
javelin

 

[Dominica33]

LutheranStudent:

An early Father who promoted sola scriptura without the excesses of Tradition. Salvation by faith alone in Jesus alone, with no regard to works. Condemnation or blatant silence on Purgatory and prayers for the dead. Recognition of the Mother of God as holy, yet a sinner like the rest of us. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though as a rememberance, not a sacrifice.

His name was St. Paul… As a matter of fact, his name was any one of the 12 apostles and NT authors.

Dream on. St. Paul exhorted the faithful: “…with fear and trembling work out your salvation” (Phil. 2:12). He never said: “In the end I know I will be saved…because I rest on the sure foundation that is Christ,” as you so smugly and presumptuously put it several posts ago.

The earliest Fathers learned directly from the Apostles (and we all know who taught them), yet none teach the “unblemished” Christianity of Luther. Why is that, LutheranStudent?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

LutheranStudent:

Luther was an honest, upstanding man who put many decent Catholics to shame with his piety.

Peace be with you!

I’m sorry, but that is just an outright LIE and I am calling you on it for what it is. Was Luther acting piously when he ordered the slaughter of thousands of peasants? Was Luther acting piously when he wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies” (the book that, incidently, inspired Hitler more than any other)? Was Luther acting piously when he wrote that he was the only one that could translate Scripture? Was Luther pious when he said that “papists” were all horses *sses?
Yes, Luther was the model of piety, to be sure. Luther was a vulgar drunk (read his comments during table talk) who thought himself to be smarter than everyone else (and he claims this in his letter on why he added “sola” to Romans 3).

Please, if you are going to lie like that, at least TRY to cite some kind of source.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Sherlock]

javelin:

I think you interpretation is potentially true, but not necessarily. Keep in mind the wonder that all of mankind will feel when they are in the presence of Jesus in the Second Coming. In that case, many would say “If we had seen YOU (meaning a glorious Jesus as Lord and King), surely we would have served!” For example, I certainly can imagine that atheists and agnostics might say something very similar at the Second Coming, when they are face to face with the wonder of the Creator and Lord they denied throughout life – “If we had seen YOU, we would certainly have served!”

I’m not saying that the goats definitively did not know Jesus or claim to be His followers, just that the passage is not explicit on their state during life. They may have been Christians in name only, or they may have been atheists.

Peace,
javelin

We’re essentially in agreement, as I am not thinking that my interpretation is* necessarily* true, only potentially true. I’m not wedded to it, as I mentioned, and so am quite willing to shed it…

 

[Lazerlike42]

LutheranStudent:

His name was St. Paul… As a matter of fact, his name was any one of the 12 apostles and NT authors.

“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”

“For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

“You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

“One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”

“May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains,
but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me earnestly and found me-- may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day!–and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.”

 

[LutheranStudent]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

I’m sorry, but that is just an outright LIE and I am calling you on it for what it is. Was Luther acting piously when he ordered the slaughter of thousands of peasants? Was Luther acting piously when he wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies” (the book that, incidently, inspired Hitler more than any other)? Was Luther acting piously when he wrote that he was the only one that could translate Scripture? Was Luther pious when he said that “papists” were all horses *sses?
Yes, Luther was the model of piety, to be sure. Luther was a vulgar drunk (read his comments during table talk) who thought himself to be smarter than everyone else (and he claims this in his letter on why he added “sola” to Romans 3).

Please, if you are going to lie like that, at least TRY to cite some kind of source.

In Christ,
Rand

First of all, Luther’s Table Talk come from second and third-hand sources for the most part. Not everything in it is reliable and that has been well-recognized. And I would probably tend to agree with alot of it.
Secondly, Luther wrote no more harshly against the Jews than he did against the Papists, Anabaptists, Zwinglians, etc. It brings satisfaction to the RCC to ignore an earlier treatise, On that Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew. That’s the one that combated the anti-semitism common in medieval culture; yes, even the Catholic Church.
Thirdly, do some research on the Peasants War. Luther never wanted the princes to go as far as they did.
Fourthly, I like how you try to degrade the gospel by pointing out the jars of clay carrying it. This type of name-calling is easy for me, simply by naming people like Pope Alexander VI, events like the Inquisition and the Crusades.